Since Measure M was approved by Los Angeles County voters last November, Metro has been developing the guidelines that will determine how funding from the new $120 billion transportation measure can be spent.
Today, the Metro Board of Directors adopted the Master Guidelines for Measure M.
It is the culmination of months of work and partnership from key community leaders like AARP, American Heart Association, Climate Resolve, Bike SGV, Safe Routes to School National Partnership, Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition, Community Health Councils, San Gabriel Mountains Forever, Pacoima Beautiful, Trust South LA, Advancement Project, FAST – Fixing Angelenos Stuck in Traffic, LA Thrives, Enterprise Community Partners, ACT-LA and many many more.
After today’s Metro Board meeting and especially Motion 38.3 by Directors Garcia, Bonin, Solis and Hahn – we give the Measure M adopted guidelines a B+. A shout out to all the Metro staff working hard to respond to concerns from a variety of stakeholders and perspective.
We look forward to continuing to work with all our partners towards further developing the Measure M Guidelines with the administrative processes and the Long Range Transportation Plan. Join us for our #JustGrowth work group on July 18th where we will be discussing next steps. RSVP here.
Thank you to everyone who attended the Tripping Point!
Thank you to the 150+ community members who attended the Tripping Point – you all made our first weekend mobility summit a major success.
Angelenos from all walks of life came out to learn how to make their voices heard. Los Angeles is at a moment of change with respect to its built environment, transportation, and its responsibilities to protect all street users. And we need it. Over 45% of the City of LA’s sidewalks are broken, there is a backlog of over 20,000 requests to fix them, and the City currently has no inventory or prioritization plan in place for addressing these tremendous infrastructure needs.
Because of a recent class action lawsuit on the lack of access and accessibility for the City’s sidewalks and crosswalks, the City is now obligated to invest at least $31 million a year in fixing our long-neglected public space and rights of way. But we hosted the Tripping Point because we think community members must get involved to ensure these investments are done right – and accelerated. The settlement requires the City of LA to fix its sidewalks within 30 years – we believe we can not wait that long. With new funding like Measure M and other revenue sources, we are advocating that these fixes be completed within 10 years using a data-driven strategic plan with robust community engagement.
Given all this, we are still optimistic as livable streets advocates – there has never been a time when the combination of attention, commitment, and funding for L.A.’s streets has been as solid as it is now. But, as our keynote speakers and attendants reminded all of us on Saturday, there also can be no doubt that more needs to be done. We need to organize and expand the movement for safe and accessible sidewalks, crosswalks, bus stop, urban tree canopy and more. This is why we believe we are at the Tripping Point.
Our streets and sidewalks need to be more accessible and safer, and, in many ways, the city is falling short of the mark. Creating streets, sidewalks, crosswalks that are safe and accessible for all has to be a priority.
To start off the morning, we were treated to a story from Cleo Jones, a member of the Willits class action settlement. Cleo suffered a fall due to a buckled sidewalk and now gets around with the help of a cane. To the audience, she said it’s time to start making sure that LA keeps its commitments to make city streets safer for pedestrians like her. “I don’t want to walk in the street,” she said, “I don’t want to walk in the mud.” We couldn’t agree more.
Deputy Mayor for City Services Barbara Romero spoke with us about the importance of human-scale infrastructure. Growing up in Boyle Heights, she shared how her neighborhood’s landmarks were freeways, and she could smell the pollution in the air. Deputy Mayor Romero emphasized that the city is shifting its approach to street repair requests, saying, “Collecting data isn’t enough.” Under her leadership and Mayor Garcetti’s, the city is focusing less on the number of requests and more on response times and whether community goals are being met. There’s also a push to integrate service plans, looking at how accessibility and safety programs, like Vision Zero, can be tied into road and sidewalk repairs.
The community has a crucial role in changing City Hall’s priorities. Many claim there’s no constituency for improving LA’s 11,000 miles of sidewalks—over 45% of which are in disrepair. At Investing in Place, we disagree. We believe organizing around our sidewalks, crosswalks, and urban tree canopy is essential. By connecting with city leaders, we can push for more to be done. The more feedback Angelenos provide, the easier it becomes to secure funding for livable streets.
Community member Vanessa Clay spoke to us about using neighborhood councils as tools for effective advocacy. In the northeast San Fernando Valley, she said, the issue is not that sidewalks are broken but that “there are no sidewalks.” She told us about a successful campaign to get a sidewalk put in place on a route that children took to a local park, and told us that neighborhood council representatives are there to help us. The best advice for dealing with city representatives? “Be persistent.”
Councilmember Nury Martinez reminded us that there is cost to doing nothing. In her district,this year alone, 9 people have already lost their lives to traffic collisions. Councilmember Martinez reflected on the neighborhood where she grew up and watching as a departing factory left behind high unemployment and a polluted environment. “Investing in human beings is the right thing to do,” Councilmember Martinez said, adding that it was important to amplify the voices of those who have been passed over for infrastructure spending in the past. “The workforce in L.A. comes from the northeast San Fernando Valley, and we have no safe way to get to work,” she said. The councilmember encouraged participants to be more vocal about their funding needs.
General Manager Seleta Reynolds of LADOT had a discussion with our Executive Director Jessica Meaney about what advocacy looks like in Los Angeles, and how the city’s residents can get more of the results they’re really looking for. General Manager Reynolds said that because of Los Angeles’ history, there is a strong network of advocacy groups working on issues like social justice, environmental justice, and other important issues. However, she said, it’s just as important that those groups be willing to “link arms” and fight together on the overarching problems that affect all of them. General Manager Reynolds discussed the importance of advocating based on the outcomes we want, and instead of focusing just on the outputs of an agency like LADOT. Instead of working just to get more trees planted, or more miles of sidewalk repaired, we should have a cohesive outcome that we can work towards. Outcomes like zero pedestrian deaths, and safe and accessible streets, provide the guidelines for building the city we want.
Following the keynote speakers, we concluded the morning session with our breakout groups. Julie Sauter of the city’s Bureau of Engineering, along with Francois Nion and Melissa Hernandez of JCDecaux, Nat Gale from the Department of Transportation and Carter Rubin from the Mayor’s office of Great Streets led presentations and a group discussion on how to get your sidewalk fixed, get a bus shelter installed or cleaned, request a crosswalk and more. The session was focused on highlighting which City agencies control different parts of the city sidewalks, how those bodies operate, other powerful players and hot to advocate for these improvements.
Meanwhile, Rudy Espinoza and Azusena Favela of LURN led an informative session explaining the city’s legislative process and administrative structure. If you don’t know who to hold accountable when things don’t change, it is that much more difficult to be an effective advocate. Rudy and Azusena broke down the responsibilities of the various government officials and explained the mechanisms that allow city council to slow down or speed up the legislation process. LURN also walked participants through the basics of advocacy, focusing on making the most of meetings with representatives. First, Rudy and Azusena explained powermapping, a tool that identifies who has the power to influence your concern, and then mapping connections between that person and yourself.
Emilia Crotty and the Los Angeles Walks team conducted a walk audit that taught practical assessment tool to participants. The group walked on a route through the neighborhood, identifying the elements that contributed to a safe, accessible and pleasant walking environment. During this session, participants learned how to spot the relationship between the built environment of a neighborhood and how residents interact with it, a crucial skill if we want to make our public spaces more useful and welcoming!
After lunch, the day concluded with a final round of breakout sessions. Jenny Binstock of TreePeople and Rachel Malarich of Koreatown Youth and Community Center hosted a talk on urban forestry issues in Los Angeles. The city has committed to beginning to repair its sidewalks, which in many places will mean removing fully grown trees and losing some of the existing canopy. Jenny and Rachel discussed how the city can develop an Urban Forestry management plan that would protect healthy trees from pests, and ensure that sufficient new tree coverage will be planted to replace the shade our streets will be losing. In some areas where large, sidewalk-buckling trees are being replaced with smaller ones, it will be necessary to plant up to four new trees for every one removed in order to protect the urban canopy. As Jenny said, “We have to plan today for the Urban Forest we want 50 years from now.”
Max Podemski of Pacoima Beautiful, Enrique Huerta of From Lot to Spot and Fernando Cazares of the Trust for Public Land co-hosted a session on urban greening. The group leaders showed participants how cities around the world have reused existing infrastructure to create livable spaces. L.A. could use multi-benefit infrastructure like community gardens, green alleys, and parklets to increase mobility, safety, and rainwater capture. After the initial discussion, participants got into groups and discussed where in Boyle Heights urban greening projects would be most effective.
There also was a workshop from America Aceves, a community organizer at Proyecto Pastoral, who presented tools for organizing in your community around pedestrian safety issues. This workshop helped participants develop their own personal story to engage others, how to set up one-on-one meetings to build partners and support and more.
All in all, it was a day filled with informative activities and passionate community members. We hope that you took away valuable skills from the Tripping Point that will help as we push to fix #LAsidewalks, crosswalks, bus stops, and the urban tree canopy. And, most of all, we hope you had as much fun as we did!
In July or August, the City of Los Angeles will be considering a prioritization process for fixing the City’s sidewalks – stay tuned for more information on that. This Advocacy Summit would not have been possible without support from our partners: American Heart Association, AARP, Office of Traffic and Safety, Los Angeles Walks, Tree People, Pacoima Beautiful, LURN, From Lot to Spot and Los Angeles Aging Advocacy Coalition.
Last week over 50 policymakers and key leaders from across the County joined Investing in Place in discussing “How do we define transportation equity for Los Angeles County?” In order to improve mobility options for all in the region, Investing in Place firmly believes it is critical to have a definition to inform our investments, coordinate with other agencies and jurisdictions, and measure the impact of success or challenges in improving mobility options in low income communities and communities of color. And the update of the region’s Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) presents the opportunity to do this.
This is the second elected officials breakfast Investing in Place has convened this year – as we see defining transportation equity and mapping an adopted criteria to build a program in the 2018 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) as one of our key campaigns. For too long, we have operated without a shared definition of transportation equity – which hinders the region’s ability to prioritize funding opportunities based on need, and create a meaningful and regionally supported program to measure impacts both good and bad to better inform policies, programs and investments.
The Investing in Place Los Angeles County Transportation Equity Technical Work Group defines “transportation equity” as:
Equitable access to safe, reliable, and affordable transportation options that connect people to employment, services, education, health care, recreation and cultural destinations.
Shared distribution of the benefits and burdens of transportation investments, especially for communities historically impacted by racial injustice, disinvestment, pollution and unsafe streets.
Partnership in the planning, investment, and implementation processes that result in:
shared decision making,
more equitable health and quality of life outcomes for high-priority areas while strengthening the entire region and serving existing residents, and
equitable policies to achieve development without displacement.
The above definition is widely supported, however, determining the criteria to identify the areas, and the program and funding to begin to operationalize this definition is where we focused the morning’s discussion.
In our policy paper on transportation equity we published last Fall, we propose that 1. Race 2. Income and 3. Vehicle ownership are at the crux, along with collision rates (recently added as a priority by our #JustGrowth work group) to address the shortcomings of long-standing, inequitable policies. The City of Los Angeles Safe Routes to School prioritization process as well as the City’s Vision Zero High Injury Network, are excellent resources that, if scaled at the county level, can have powerful and measurable benefits to the region as a whole – and are inspiring a lot of this work.
So what was discussed ?
Agreement we need to define equity and create a meaningful strategy and program for the 2018 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP)
At heart of this work are the real lived experiences from everyday people. This campaign needs personal stories to talk about why this issue matters.
Metro traditionally measures need based on access and mobility – using race as a criteria concerns them, and many believe will present challenges. In contrast many members at the breakfast voiced we could no longer ignore race in our mobility policies – and especially could not in any equity strategy.
Learn from housing policy that addresses undoing racial segregation in housing policies. And think about how a shared definition/criteria of high need areas in Los Angeles County could allow for multiple agencies and jurisdictions to have coordinated strategies around housing and development without displacement.
Safety matters to all. The City of Los Angeles Vision Zero efforts, included polling on transportation issues. The city also held focus groups that found people supported targeting resources to high need areas and efforts to improve safety, especially for vulnerable users.
Improve measurements to access – especially to job centers. Consider access when in criteria conversation.
Many of these discussion points provide the key next steps for this process – story banking, examining policies and opportunities that use race as a criteria, continuing to have these conversations with partners and leaders across the County – and especially Metro as staff works to develop their Transportation Equity Strategy by March 2018.
Investing in Place is inspired by last week’s conversation is working to continue this discussion and support a platform for #JustGrowth in Los Angeles County.
Note: This blog was guest written by Jordan Fraade, a second-year master’s student in UCLA’s Urban Planning program. Jordan is completing his Applied Planning Research Project in coordination with Investing in Place.
Since September, I’ve been collaborating with Investing in Place on a study of dedicated bus infrastructure in LA, in particular “how we can work together to push Los Angeles into a future when bus riders can count on the same high-quality, frequent service that rail riders receive on a regular basis.” The school year is almost over, and I’m looking forward to sharing the final product with IiP’s collaborators and partners in a few weeks — including some concrete recommendations based on feedback I’ve gotten from everyday riders. But in the meantime, I’ve spent the last few months traveling all around Los Angeles County, talking to transportation experts from the public, private, and nonprofit sectors. My task in all of these interviews was to find out what they think has been holding back the region’s bus service, and how they think we can fix it.
So, what needs to be done? A full analysis of what my interviewees told me will be included in the final report, but in the meantime, here are some major themes that kept coming up:
Many people feel geographic equity is key to getting things done in LA. Los Angeles County is huge and diverse, and any measure to raise tax revenue (like Measure M) needs a two-thirds majority to pass. This means a very high level of buy-in is needed across a huge region, and if every part of the county wants to feel like it’s getting its money’s worth, that might mean investing in more expensive, big-ticket projects for those regions, at the expense of upgrades to existing service in the urban core, where most riders live.
Taking lanes away from drivers is really, really hard. The Orange Line is the city’s only true BRT line, and it was built on a strip of land that used to belong to the Southern Pacific Railroad. In contrast, the success of future BRT projects in LA will depend on our ability to take existing mixed-traffic lanes, and turn them into bus-only lanes. Planners call this the “concentrated costs and diffuse benefits” problem: Thousands of bus riders from across the city will benefit from faster and more reliable travel, but they won’t be as organized or vocal as the handful of neighborhood residents who are furious that the lane in front of their house is being taken away — and want to make sure everybody knows it.
Bus riders are frequently “othered,” and have few champions in places of power. One of my interviewees said that even well-meaning transit planners and elected officials sometimes think of bus riders as “those people.” This could reflect unconscious racial and class prejudices. It could be because few Angelenos take transit, and therefore don’t know what it’s like to be a rider on a daily basis. Either way, it’s important not to fall into the trap of thinking that bus riders are “captive,” and will accept whatever quality of service they’re given. They vote with their feet, just like anybody else.
LA’s political structure is decentralized, which makes it difficult to cooperate on big projects. For example, transit projects are built and operated by Metro, but the city Department of Transportation controls street design and engineering. In order to build and maintain dedicated bus lanes, two agencies with very different institutional cultures have to work together and coordinate their efforts. Individual cities and neighborhoods can “opt out” of projects they don’t like, as Beverly Hills and part of Westwood did with the Wilshire Blvd. bus lanes. And LA’s city government is set up to have a small, powerful City Council, giving each Council member effective veto power over what happens in their district. Having a sympathetic ear in City Hall is crucial to success.
I included these findings in a poster I presented on April 3 at UCLA, joined by many of my urban-planning classmates who shared their own research projects. Take a look below:
For the last stage of the project, I have been convening focus groups to find out the community perspective — what do riders want and need for their communities, and how can they organize and work strategically to make it happen? I’m holding my final focus group on Wednesday May 24 at 6 p.m. in Downtown LA, and all are welcome! All participants will receive a gift card to La Monarca Cafe. If you’d like to participate, email jordanfraade@g.ucla.edu or call 203.246.8342.
Además, queremos hacer un grupo de discusión para los pasajeros y miembros de la comunidad que hablan español. Vamos a reunirnos dentro de 10 días, y todos los participantes recibirán una tarjeta de regalo a Cafe La Monarca. Si quiere participar, escriba a jordanfraade@g.ucla.edu o llame a 203.246.8342. ¡Gracias!
After Measure M — the $120 billion transportation measure approved by LA County voters in November 2016 — passed, we asked our readers: how do we guarantee that current and future generations of families, especially in low-income neighborhoods, benefit and thrive with Measure M’s investments?
.@Prof_MPastor: Implementation matters. Not enough to pass Measure M. Need to follow through on antidisplacement. #justgrowth
We heard loud and clear (and we strongly agree): we have to “bake in” equity into all of Metro’s programs, policies, and investments — this is one of the core concepts of our #JustGrowth work group.
Don’t think about equity as an add-on, put it as a fundamental part of economic model and governance. –@Prof_MPastor#justgrowth
The Measure M guidelines are the first opportunity to review Metro’s approach to implementing the promises made to voters to invest in building a safe, sustainable, and reliable transportation network for the region. Investing in Place reviewed these draft guidelines with an eye toward integrating the policy best practices we care about — including data-driven decision-making, prioritizing the needs of vulnerable communities, and valuing public participation — into all Measure M projects and programs.
In our report, we provide an overview of the guidelines and their role in implementation, highlight aspects we are excited about, and recommend improvements to ensure Measure M stays true to the progressive ideals that led to its passage.
We provided a suite of policy recommendations to ensure Measure M lives up to its potential during implementation. We believe Metro should:
Ensure all projects and programs funded by Measure M comply with Metro’s Complete Streets Policy;
Prioritize traffic safety–particularly for people walking and biking–in all funding programs for streets and highways;
Set clear objectives for each program in line with regional performance metrics;
Require transparency and public participation in all project development and prioritization processes;
Dedicate funding for countywide active transportation programs, including open streets, bike share operations, bike safety education, and safe routes to school non-infrastructure programs; and
Support innovation in the Multiyear Subregional Programs by expanding eligibility for planning, data collection, project development, and transportation demand management (TDM) and building capacity at each council of governments (COG).
On Wednesday, April 5th 1pm, Metro’s Policy Advisory Council will meet for the first time to discuss, among many things, the Measure M draft guidelines. We encourage you to attend and provide feedback. The meeting will take place on the 15th floor of Metro’s Headquarters (1 Gateway Plaza). These meetings are open to the public. Metro is accepting public comments on the draft guidelines through May 26th — we encourage all our partners to weigh in by emailing feedback to theplan@metro.net.
Note: This blog was guest written by Jordan Fraade, a second-year master’s student in UCLA’s Urban Planning program. Jordan is completing his Applied Planning Research Project in coordination with Investing in Place.
Last month, I wrote my first blog post for Investing in Place, introducing my project on “how we can work together to push Los Angeles into a future when bus riders can count on the same high-quality, frequent service that rail riders receive on a regular basis.” In practice, this means investing in Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) — city planners’ catchall term for a variety of bus improvements that increase frequency and speed, decrease time buses spend waiting at stations, and ensure that buses don’t have to sit in traffic.
Back in 2013, Metro released a study identifying 9 potential BRT routes throughout the county, and two of them, Vermont Avenue and the North Hollywood-Pasadena connector, were given more funding when we passed Measure M in November. In early February, Metro released a Technical Study for the Vermont Avenue BRT, which provides 4 alternatives for what the line might look like.
Vermont is second busiest corridor in LA County. Need bus rapid transit (maybe light rail?). Connecting jobs/housing/play #metroplan
The agency has a decision to make…How can we ensure that Metro makes the most of this exciting opportunity for Los Angeles’ bus riders?
Case Study: Bus Rapid Options for Vermont Avenue
The stakes are very high. Vermont Avenue is the second-most-travelled transit corridor in the city, second only to Wilshire, with an estimated 45,000 bus trips every weekday — for comparison, the entire Metrolink system serves more than 39,000 riders a day. The neighborhoods adjacent to the Vermont Avenue corridor are mostly low-income, densely populated, and have a high percentage of households that commute by transit. There is already frequent transit service on the 204 and 754 buses, but because the corridor is so congested, the buses are overcrowded and slow.
Median household income in Los Angeles with Vermont Corridor highlighted. Map by Scott Frazier.
The study area for Vermont BRT is just over 12 miles, stretching from Hollywood Blvd. to 120th Street. Metro’s proposals include:
1. Side-running BRT for the entire corridor (12.4 miles). Currently, each side of Vermont Avenue features 2 or 3 travel lanes, plus a parking lane on the far right. This proposal would take the travel lane next to parking and convert it into an exclusive lane for buses.
2. Side-running BRT for the northern end of the corridor and center-running BRT for the southern end. South of Gage Avenue, where Vermont becomes wider, the exclusive bus lanes would be placed in the center of the road instead of along the side.
3. Converting the on-street parking lane into an exclusive bus lane. This would remove more than half the on-street parking on Vermont. Where the road isn’t wide enough to accommodate a bus lane, buses would travel in mixed traffic.
4. Converting the on-street parking lane into an exclusive bus lane during rush hour only. Buses would have to travel in mixed traffic at all other times, but this proposal would allow almost all Vermont Avenue’s on-street parking to stay in place.
Making Headway on Bus Rapid Transit
Each of these proposals has its upsides and downsides in terms of cost, time savings, and inconvenience to existing drivers, but one clear trend is that the less space you dedicate exclusively for buses, the harder it is to make BRT work well. And if (like me) you are a frequent rider of bus line 720, which goes along Wilshire Boulevard corridor like me, Proposals 3 and 4 might seem familiar to you: their designs are very similar to Wilshire’s dedicated bus lanes.
How well have those dedicated lanes been performing? Let’s take a look:
Like most of Metro’s bus lines, ridership on the 720 has declined over the last few years.
Source: Metro Interactive Estimated Ridership Stats. http://isotp.metro.net/MetroRidership/IndexAllBus.aspx
The 720 is also one of the 5 worst-performing buses when it comes to on-time performance, based on records kept since 2010.
There’s no doubt that the bus lanes on Wilshire were an important step forward for the city, but on a basic performance level, they’re just not working as planned. I think the planners at Metro know this, which is why they recommend choosing Alternative 1 or 2 for Vermont BRT — plans that set aside permanent bus lanes, show the greatest potential for increasing bus speed, and will do the most to improve the mobility for residents and workers along the Vermont corridor.
Next Steps
Now comes the hard part. We have the beginnings of a plan that improves public transit in an area that really needs help. (Several writers have made the case that this corridor should have rail, not a bus, and their analysis is worth reading.)
I wrote about Vermont BRT, the potential for rail and the bottoms-up process that generated Measure M’s proj list. Up now on @UrbanizeLA! https://t.co/9dilolfV8g
How do we make sure it gets implemented? And how do we guarantee that riders and community members have a seat at the table when Metro planners and city lawmakers sit down to hammer out the details of Vermont BRT?
These are the questions I’ll be trying to answer over the next several months — and to answer them, I need your help. If you have thoughts about the Vermont corridor plans or bus service in L.A., please reach out to me at jordanfraade@g.ucla.edu. In the next few weeks, with the help of Investing in Place, I’ll be convening focus groups to discuss how better bus transit can improve communities throughout L.A., and I’m eager to hear your thoughts.
Last month, Investing in Place met with parents of the First 5 LA Best Start community in the City of Lancaster to talk about transportation concerns. We were joined by Brian Ludicke and Randie Davis of the City of Lancaster planning department, and a diverse group of over 50 parents and children — many who were African-American, Latino, or spoke Spanish as their primary language at home.
In short, parents in Lancaster wanted to see their tax dollars go towards improving crosswalks and sidewalks around schools and more affordable and reliable bus service for students. From a city managerial perspective, safe and walkable communities is not just a health and wellness issue, but in Lancaster, it’s a fiscal and economic development issue. For example, Lancaster was able to build a thriving economic base after the effects of the 2008 Great Recession because of their investments in attracting and retaining small businesses along its Downtown corridor.
As Brian Ludicke (Planning Director for Lancaster) alluded to in his experience working on Lancaster’s Boulevard project (a national Complete Streets model), in order to have a well-functioning city with great quality of life, you need political support, community advocates, and citywide policies with teeth (like a Safe Routes to School plan or Complete Streets policy). It is possible, as Brian demonstrated in Lancaster, to build towards a safe, walkable, and economically-vibrant community.
In all, we were on the same page: we all wanted to understand how to create a safe and walkable community for all, especially youth getting to and from school. This sentiment from Lancaster parents reflected the general viewpoint from LA County as a whole — in a poll we conducted in May, we similarly found an overwhelming number of LA County voters wanted safe, walkable communities.
For Investing in Place and our countywide work, we learned three lessons from the Lancaster forum that would be useful for other cities as they begin to implement Complete Streets projects (and “completing” streets in general):
Good planning and policy starts with listening and intentionally seeking solutions that offer better transportation options for all, starting with the most vulnerable like youth, older adults, and people with disabilities. In our experience, addressing the barriers that the most vulnerable experience today — like access to frequent and reliable bus service, shaded bus stops, safe sidewalks and intersections — helps to strengthen quality of life for all.
Work with businesses, residents, and city departments to build trust and develop shared goals.
Be persistent about building community and political support — and measure progress and outcomes. For example, the City of Lancaster invested $10 million to redesign Downtown Lancaster and has since received over $125 million in new economic activity and a 26 percent jump in sales tax revenue. These types of measurable outcomes are important when making future investments in completing streets, especially with new elected decision-makers.
Thank you to the parents and organizers of First 5 LA Best Start Lancaster for hosting us, and special thanks to Brian Ludicke and Randie Davis of the City of Lancaster planning department for joining us.
For a flashback on the movement for Complete Streets in Los Angeles County, check out this video from a few years back as advocates were building support for Metro’s Complete Streets policy. Still much more work — on advocacy, implementation, and oversight — to be done.
To read more about Brian’s work with the City of Lancaster, please see his interview with Streetsblog Los Angeles here.
Over the past months, most of the attention on Metro’s ballot measure has been, understandably, on the major transit and highway projects planned by Metro. But, for many of us working at the neighborhood level, the important caveat is: the measure would also generate billions of dollars for local projects in the City of Los Angeles and every other city in the county. That means opportunities to re-invest in our sidewalks, crosswalks, and streets — the crucial but often forgotten infrastructure that helps get us to our transit stations or bus stops.
Who thinks LA County should spend much more on fixing sidewalks and making crosswalks safer? Communities of color pic.twitter.com/RL3P4vbYHR
— Investing in Place (@InvestinPlace) June 7, 2016
Like Propositions A and C and Measure R before it, Metro’s ballot measure (what might be coined “Measure M”) would include a substantial local return program. Local return is a formula funding program that distributes money to local jurisdictions for street and sidewalk repair, municipal transit operations, capital projects, and other transportation purposes based on population.
Results are in: How do Angelenos want to spend transpo ballot ?? [Spoiler: Crosswalks (81%) and sidewalks (74%)] https://t.co/FQsCKTwJTF
— Los Angeles Walks (@LosAngelesWalks) June 7, 2016
Metro’s Measure M would allocate 17 percent of the new ballot measure revenue to local return, which would increase to 20 percent after 2039. By our estimate, this would generate over $130 million per year for all 88 cities and the County of Los Angeles, including over $50 million per year for just the City of Los Angeles (due to the fact the City of LA represents approximately 40% of the County’s population). If you’re a City Manager, public works or streets services official, elected official, or a transportation advocate in any of LA County’s cities, you have a timely opportunity to advocate for where local return funding should go.
In May, two motions were introduced at Los Angeles City Council, kicking off the discussion of how the City of Los Angeles might use the revenue from its share of local return from the potential ballot measure.
— Investing in Place (@InvestinPlace) May 25, 2016
Local return is an important revenue source for cities to maintain their local transportation infrastructure. Most cities use their local return to operate small bus systems, to repave streets and repair sidewalks, and to leverage state and federal grants for capital projects. Metro’s Measure M proposes to expand eligibility to include stormwater capture and transit-oriented communities.
With so many competing demands on a limited funding source, it is important for cities to set clear priorities to use local return funding efficiently and effectively to achieve desired policy outcomes. For more background on local return in the City of Los Angeles, see our policy brief from our webinar in May.
As discussed in our brief, Investing in Place’s priorities with local return are:
To prioritize projects based on need,
To integrate complete streets and green streets into street repair, and
To set aside 20 percent of funding for sidewalks, crosswalks, bike lanes, bus stops, safe routes to school, and other related projects that address safety and access for people traveling on foot or bicycle, as recommended in the City’s Mobility Plan 2035.
These policies will maximize the benefits of the potential measure for Los Angeles’ neighborhoods, deliver improvements more cost effectively, and prioritize the safety of the city’s most vulnerable residents.
When this issue was last discussed by council members in May, the Transportation Committee considered the two local return motions, heard testimony from the public — including many of our partners — and directed city staff to report back with a more comprehensive proposal for using the new revenue in line with the City’s adopted policy priorities, including Mobility Plan 2035, the Safe Routes to School Strategic Plan, Vision Zero, and more.
Taking a pause to consider the magnitude of potential investment and the best way to prioritize all of these needs is a win for advocates, giving us time to engage with staff and council offices to articulate a more holistic approach to transportation funding in the City of Los Angeles.
Stay tuned for updates as this discussion continues at Transportation Committee possibly in August or in the early fall and consider signing onto our letter (to be drafted in early August) outlining Investing in Place’s priorities for local return in the City of Los Angeles. To join our local return working group efforts and/or learn more, please email jessica@investinginplace.org.
Two years ago, over 60 #metrofundwalkbike advocates attended a Metro Planning & Programming Committee meeting on the Short Range Transportation Plan, setting off a series of actions and incremental victories for walking and biking in Los Angeles County.
Last month, our efforts culminated in a ballot measure expenditure plan that would spend over $4 billion* (2015 dollars) on walking, biking, and connecting our residents to transit stations and bus stops over the next 40 years. Dubbed the Los Angeles County Traffic Improvement Plan, Metro’s measure will go before voters in November and needs two-thirds support to pass.
In the last few months, our coverage focused on the changes we were pushing for and we scored some significant wins in the revised plan while defending all the great projects that were included in the March draft. Now that the dust has settled after the final plan’s adoption, it is clear that the ballot measure is a huge leap forward for walking and biking in Los Angeles County and includes funding to make our communities safer, healthier, and more equitable.
— Investing in Place (@InvestinPlace) May 18, 2016
That doesn’t mean our work is done — far from it. We still need to better define what we mean by transportation equity, to focus on parts of the county that are falling behind like the Gateway Cities, and to grow the voices of local champions on these issues.
While our work continues, it is important to recognize that all of our future victories will be easier in an environment where there is robust funding for transit, streets, and the rest of our transportation system. The November ballot measure — Measure M — is a critical piece of that equation. As Metro and the campaign start to educate voters about the measure, here’s a recap of what Measure M would do for walking and biking:
1. Integrate First and Last Mile Access to Transit into All Projects
With the recent opening of rail lines in the San Gabriel Valley and the Westside, there’s been a lot of coverage about whether people can easily access the new lines. Up until now, people walking and biking to transit have been an afterthought in transit planning, but those days are over — Metro’s recent Quality of Life report found that a vast majority of transit users get to the train station or bus stop without a car.
— Investing in Place (@InvestinPlace) May 18, 2016
One of the most significant revisions in the final expenditure plan was the addition of an innovative policy to fund first and last mile improvements near new transit stations. The policy would require cities to contribute three percent of the cost of new transit projects and allow them to use that money to make improvements for walking and biking in the vicinity of the new stations. We called the Active Transportation Strategic Plan a “game changer” because it helps build an integrated transportation system that truly connects neighborhoods to transit. Our initial estimate values these improvements at about $300-500 million over the life of the measure.
2. Finish Los Angeles River and San Gabriel Valley Greenways
Los Angeles County has an extensive network of greenways along our rivers, railroad rights-of-way, and other corridors. These paths provide important links to schools, parks, and other community destinations.
For some long-distance bike commuters, the paths provide efficient, traffic-free routes to transit stations and regional job centers. But this network is incomplete, with missing links that prevent people from fully utilizing the system. Many of these missing links are in park-poor communities without safe places for children and families to be physically active.
Measure M includes funding to close the gap in the Los Angeles River bike path through Downtown Los Angeles and open to the public some of the tributaries to the San Gabriel River that are currently behind locked gates. The result will be a connected bike path network for preschoolers with training wheels, people who love riding for miles on end, and everyone in between who would be able to use high-quality bike paths to meet their friends and family, to get to work or school, and more. The measure allocates over $650 million for these projects.
3. Fund Safe Routes to School and Other Active Transportation Programs and Projects
Each subregion had the opportunity to set aside funding for walking, biking, and safe routes to school, depending on local priorities. (For more about Los Angeles County’s nine subregions, see our memo on Councils of Governments.) Nearly all subregions did. These programs vary in name, description, and funding levels, but they all set aside funding for future active transportation needs. Eligible uses would include infrastructure like sidewalks, crosswalks, and bike lanes, and programs like safe routes to school, public education campaigns, and open streets events.
Reps from Gateway Cities and South Bay COG talk about getting equitable investments in their disadvantaged comms. pic.twitter.com/hKifOvyVcW
Funding and investments will be controlled by the subregion, so it is important for advocates to get involved in setting the priorities, including which specific projects and programs should be funded in each part of the county.
Here’s how much each subregion set aside for walking, biking, safe routes to school, and complete streets programs:
4. Require Complete Streets in All Projects
All projects in the ballot measure are governed by Metro’s Complete Streets Policy, which requires projects to incorporate the needs of people walking, biking, and taking transit. While we had asked for this policy to be included directly in the ballot measure ordinance, the fact is that complete streets is already required and has been since 2014. Metro staff is still working on updating planning procedures to ensure that all projects comply with the policy, and advocates will need to keep a watchful eye on projects to make sure that they do, but voters should feel comfortable that even the highway projects included in the measure will make accommodations for people walking, biking, and taking transit.
5. Repair Streets and Sidewalks
Fixing streets and sidewalks is the responsibility of local jurisdictions, but many cities haven’t had enough funding to keep their sidewalks in good condition and make them accessible for people with disabilities.
— Investing in Place (@InvestinPlace) June 8, 2016
Metro’s final expenditure plan increased local return up to 20 percent with the expectation that cities will use this funding to make infrastructure improvements. To make sure voters understand this commitment (and at our urging), Metro included sidewalk repair right alongside fixing potholes in the 75-word ballot summary that voters will see:
Sidewalks are an essential part of the transportation system, so it is critical for cities to have the resources to maintain them.
6. Fund Countywide Walking and Biking Programs
In addition to all of the funding described above, Metro has reserved $857.5 million — about $20 million per year — for programs and projects that serve the whole county. This would provide a stable funding source for ongoing program costs currently subject to the uncertainty of grant funding, like safe routes to school, bike safety classes, public education campaigns, open streets, and bike share. Stable funding is essential for these programs to grow and reach the maximum number of residents possible. This funding might also be used for capital projects with countywide significance, or maintenance and operation of active transportation infrastructure.
And So Much More…
These walking and biking programs are just one piece of what the measure would do. It also includes dedicated funding for transit maintenance in perpetuity, yet-to-be-identified bus rapid transit projects, expanded bus and rail operations, and enhanced service for students, seniors, and people with disabilities. This all adds up to a remarkably balanced, forward-looking plan that makes significant investments in our communities. The measure is a strong foundation for us to build on to create truly safe, healthy, and equitable communities and we are pleased to support it.
*The sum of all projects and programs included in the expenditure plan with a primary purpose of enhancing walking and biking (“active transportation”) is $3.9 billion. Some of these programs also include other related purposes that might not be exclusively for walking and biking, such as complete streets and first/last mile improvements. This $3.9 billion estimate does not include the potential value of Metro’s new first/last mile policy that integrates walking and biking improvements near new transit stations into the transit project budget, which could add another $300-500 million for walking and biking. All estimates are in 2015 dollars.
In March, Metro released a draft expenditure plan for a potential half-cent sales tax to be put on the November 2016 ballot. Supplementing existing revenue from Propositions A and C and Measure R, the potential additional measure would raise well over $100 billion over the next several decades for transportation improvements across Los Angeles County. Investing in Place and the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition (LACBC) have worked in partnership to campaign for funding from this measure to make our communities more walkable, bikeable, and equitable. How we spend public funds is a reflection of our shared values. Metro’s plan envisions a future with more transportation options serving more communities, more neighborhoods connected by walking and biking infrastructure, and less congested freeways with fewer bottlenecks. This analysis of Metro’s revised plan builds on Investing in Place’s March policy brief, which outlined our priorities in the potential measure and in all our efforts at Metro, including the 2017 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). Read our complete analysis here.
STATEMENT: With a November Los Angeles County transportation sales tax, voters strongly support making streets safer for walking and funding alternatives to driving
LOS ANGELES, CA — Investing in Place, a Los Angeles non-profit whose mission is to create livable and safe communities, commissioned Goodwin Simon Strategic Research to survey Los Angeles County voters on their priorities for the use of transportation funds. This poll was funded in part by a grant from Voices for Healthy Kids, an initiative of the American Heart Association.
On June 23rd, the Metro Board of Directors of Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (also known as Metro) will decide whether to approve an expenditure plan for a transportation sales tax in the November 2016 general election. Metro’s proposal, if passed by voters in November 2016, would be the region’s 4th transportation sales tax measure.
The survey conducted by Goodwin Simon Strategic Research demonstrated strong voter support for using the revenue from a potential Los Angeles County Transportation sales tax measure to fund alternatives to driving and especially for investing in a county that is safer for walking.
Although there is certainly strong support for spending potential ballot measure funds on freeways, rail transit, and bus service, there is even stronger support for spending the revenue on alternatives to driving. In fact, interest in spending funds from the measure on such alternatives is much higher among those who say they would vote yes on it. In short, making alternatives to driving and especially walking and biking part of the funding priorities for the measure will earn it additional votes.
“We’re on the verge of truly aligning transportation funding with the needs of our communities,” said Jessica Meaney, Managing Director of Investing in Place, “Our survey shows Los Angeles County voters want — and are willing to vote for — investments in making their neighborhoods walkable, bikeable, and easier to get to public transit and bus stops.”
The survey found that support for using ballot measure funds on more freeway lanes (65% in favor) is actually lower than support for investments in making it easier and safe to walk and bike:
83% favor using funds from the measure to make it easier and safer for children to walk or bike to schools.
81% favor using ballot measure funds to improve crosswalks so they are safer for people walking.
74% favor using ballot measure funds for fixing sidewalks, including more street trees, benches, wider sidewalks, lighting, and more separation from cars.
61% favor using ballot measure funds on additional bike paths and bike lanes.
Whereas most County voters are regular walkers, and a lower but still notable 25% bike at least once a month, those proportions could be higher if Los Angeles County addressed concerns about safety from crime and safety from crashes while walking or biking — this could include better lighting, safer crosswalks, and smoother surfaces for strollers, bikes, and wheelchairs.
“Two-thirds of Los Angeles County voters would walk or bike more if the streets felt safe — this number jumps to 78 percent for women under age 60, and up to 80 percent of Latinos,” said Tamika Butler, Executive Director of the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition, “People should be able to walk and bike to school, to the store, and to the park without risking their lives. It would be a missed opportunity to spend billions making it easier to drive across the county when so many of our residents can’t even walk safely to the bus stop or bike to the train station.”
Official traffic data estimates people walking and biking represent 19 percent of all trips in Los Angeles County, yet make up 39 percent of those killed in traffic collisions. In low-income communities of color, people walk and bike at higher rates and are at even greater risk of being hit and killed due to lack of investment in safe streets.
“A majority of voters across Los Angeles County support using transportation funds to fix our sidewalks,” said Emilia Crotty, Policy and Program Manager for Los Angeles Walks. “Besides protecting people from injury, we need to avoid the legal mess cities get tangled in when people fall and hurt themselves on our sidewalks. Repairing broken sidewalks is not only the right thing to do, but is a smart fiscal strategy to avoid legal fees in the long run. It also increases transit use by making it easier for people to walk to train stations and bus stops.”
Anisha Hingorani, Policy and Program Manager for Multicultural Communities for Mobility said, “Investing in Place’s survey found that 64% would walk or bike more if the sidewalks were in good repair and accommodated strollers and wheelchairs. Over three-fourths of voters in Southeast Los Angeles, including the Gateway Cities subregion, want more funds to be spent on improving sidewalks. Repairing our sidewalks is a crucial first step to ensuring safe passage for all Los Angeles County residents, especially in low-income communities and communities of color. These community members have been historically shut out of public investment discussions and deserve equitable, walkable and bikeable neighborhoods.”
“There is a strong connection between the built environment and public health. Los Angeles County has a tremendous opportunity to leverage billions of dollars in public funds and invest it in improving walking and bicycling conditions throughout the region,” said Eric Batch, Vice President of Government Relations for the American Heart Association. “Investing in Place’s survey found that dedicating funds from the measure to make it safer for our young people to walk or bike to school or near their homes is extremely popular with voters. Also, with 83% of Metro bus riders getting to their stop by walking, funds from this measure can improve options for current bus riders and attract new riders to Metro’s transit system.”
Goodwin Simon Strategic Research conducted 601 interviews in Los Angeles County with a margin of error about plus or minus 4% at a 95% confidence level.
Other key findings of interest from the survey:
Just under two-thirds (65%) say they would vote yes on the measure, including 45% who say they would definitely vote yes.
Driving is the primary mode of transportation for Los Angeles County voters, and this is true across party, race, and geographic differences. However, voters have conflicted feelings about driving: most feel forced to drive and would prefer other options. For example, more than two in three voters overall (68%) and 79% of those who drive on a regular basis, would like to spend less time in their cars.
Among those who drive on a regular basis, 60% would like to be able to walk and bicycle more often to destinations like shops and schools. Among those who say they will vote in favor of the upcoming sales tax measure, 66% say they would like to be able to walk and bicycle more often.
A couple of months ago, we released our analysis of Metro’s draft expenditure plan, covering what’s promising and what’s concerning about Metro’s proposed uses for about $120 billion in potential revenue, or even more from a 45 or 50-year measure that is scheduled to go before Los Angeles County voters in November 2016. Before that can happen, the Metro Board of Directors need to approve an expenditure plan for the ballot measure. The final expenditure plan is expected to be reviewed by the Metro Board in June. As we get closer to the Metro board’s decision about a final plan, we wanted to provide a recap where we are and where we still need to make progress for the ballot measure to deliver key benefits for our communities with this potential new funding.
In our March 2016 analysis, we praised Metro leadership for funding transit operations and state of good repair, planning for new bus rapid transit lines and transit-oriented communities, and creating new services for students, older adults, and people with disabilities in the draft expenditure plan. We also applauded Metro for dedicating about six percent of the measure for projects and programs that directly serve trips made on foot or bicycle, and an additional three percent for complete streets projects where safety for people walking and biking is the central purpose of the expenditure. (Metro’s own pie chart shows only two percent for active transportation, however many walking and biking projects are in the transit and highway categories.) Together, these projects and programs that focus on making Los Angeles County safer and more accessible to people walking and biking account for about nine percent of the measure. It is still less than what’s needed, but it’s a good start.
There are still missed opportunities that should be fixed before the expenditure plan is finalized to ensure that all communities are served by the potential ballot measure. As we wrote in our analysis, the draft expenditure plan’s funding for active transportation is both inadequate and inequitable. There isn’t enough money overall for walking, biking, and safe routes to school and, more importantly, some communities were entirely left out of the limited active transportation funding that was included. Without investing in safe streets for all communities, the measure falls short of its potential. In our comment letter, we called this a “fatal flaw.”
There are also policy changes that would clarify how walking and biking are integrated into other projects through complete streets and first/last mile access. Integrated planning should be written directly into the ordinance to provide assurance to voters that commitments to complete streets are enforceable. These changes would maximize the value of investments in transit and highways by making sure that all projects consistently deliver benefits for people who walk and bike.
Here’s what a win for Investing in Place and our partners looks like:
Dedicated Funding for Active Transportation in the Gateway Cities
There is no way around the fact that some of Los Angeles County’s most environmentally impacted and lowest-income communities of color are located in the Gateway Cities subregion. Cities like Cudahy, Pico Rivera, Bell, and Compton are emerging as regional leaders on walking, biking, and safe routes to school planning, but just don’t have the resources they need to rebuild streets that haven’t been updated since World War II. Long Beach aspires to be the most bicycle-friendly city in the United States, but would receive no dedicated funding toward their goal under the current proposal. While other subregions will have funding for greenways along the upper Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers (and their tributaries), the lower sections of these rivers will see no access improvements.
At the Southeast cities townhall hosted by Metro in April, participants showed support for walking and biking investments in the area.
Research by the Safe Routes to School National Partnership and LACBC found that while high-resource cities are able to strategically mix local return and other city revenue with state and federal grants to fund walking and biking improvements, low-resource cities like those in southeast L.A. County don’t have local funding to leverage, and are therefore completely reliant on outside funding sources. A subregional program for active transportation — like those proposed for North County, Las Virgenes-Malibu, San Gabriel Valley, Westside Cities, and Arroyo Verdugo — would be a game changer for these cities, especially if it addresses first/last mile conditions, and safe routes to school investments. Based on population and need, a Gateway Cities Active Transportation Program should be funded at $400 to $500 million over the life of the ballot measure, which is about $10 million per year (2015 dollars). This funding could come from reallocating funding from other projects, pursuing innovative financing from new ExpressLanes in the subregion, or extending the sunset date of the measure to generate more revenue. Without dedicated funding for walking and biking, safe routes to school planning, and complete streets in the Gateway Cities from the ballot measure, the most vulnerable residents in the county will continue to have the least safe streets and the worst access.
Clear Commitment to Complete Streets
In October 2014, Metro adopted its award-winning Complete Streets Policy, which firmly commits the agency to provide for the needs of all people in all of it’s projects. The policy recognizes Metro’s role as a planning, funder, builder, and operator of the region’s transportation system working in partnership with cities to improve streets for people who walk and bike. It is Metro’s role as a funder that is particularly important in the formulation of the potential ballot measure and the creation of new projects and programs that will shape the next half-century of transportation in Los Angeles County. This ballot measure needs to reaffirm Metro’s commitment to complete streets in every project and program.
The draft expenditure plan includes an innovative programmatic approach to addressing safety, congestion, and accessibility on arterial streets, led by each subregion. Some of these programs are called “complete streets” in their program titles, and we included these in our funding analysis in March. Others are vague arterial improvement programs without defined purpose or scope. Metro’s Complete Streets Policy should apply to these programs, but since the programs have yet to be defined, that commitment has not yet been articulated.
The potential of these programs is huge. If all arterial programs were developed with strong complete streets guidelines, then over $3 billion (over 7%) of the measure, in 2015 dollars, would go toward building complete streets that improve safety and accessibility for everyone, including people walking, biking, taking transit, and driving.
*In our March analysis, these programs were counted toward an estimated $1.2 billion in complete streets improvements in the draft expenditure plan.
What needs to be in the measure to guarantee Metro’s commitment to complete streets? In San Diego’s TransNet sales tax, complete streets are written directly into the ordinance that goes on the ballot. They use the following language:
All new projects, or major reconstruction projects, funded by revenues provided under this Ordinance shall accommodate travel by pedestrians and bicyclists, except where pedestrians and bicyclists are prohibited by law from using a given facility or where the cost of including bikeways and walkways would be excessively disproportionate to the need or probable use. Such facilities for pedestrian and bicycle use shall be designed to the best currently available standards and guidelines.
If Metro were to use similar language in its ballot measure, voters could be confident that projects funded by the measure will deliver safe and accessible streets in their communities.
Integrated Funding for First and Last Mile Access in All Transit Projects
Last week, the Metro Board considered a motion by L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti to clarify that first and last mile access will be integrated into all future transit capital projects, building on momentum generated by Metro’s First/Last Mile Strategic Plan and Active Transportation Strategic Plan. An amendment by Inglewood Mayor James Butts would go further by allowing cities to count investment in walking and biking improvements around station areas as part of their required 3% capital contribution for major transit projects. (For more information about this motion, see last week’s blog post.) While the motion passed out of Planning and Programming Committee unanimously, it was continued until June by the board due to questions about the financial impact of the new policy.
What the board realized during discussion of the motion is that while it’s one thing to have a strong policy, what also needs to happen is a commensurate increase in transit project budgets to reflect the expanded scope. These improvements were not a part of the cost estimation process for these projects and should have been. While life-of-project budgets 20 or 30 years in the future already factor in a degree of flexibility to account for future uncertainties, there is nothing uncertain about the need to plan for first and last mile access. We recommend that all major transit capital project budgets be increased by 3 to 5% to account for the addition of walking and biking improvements to their scopes, which would require identifying an additional $325 to $550 million countywide in the expenditure plan. The consideration of 45 and 50-year alternatives provides an opportunity to increase project funding without taking away from other projects and programs.
The board will reconsider the motion at its June meeting, and support from advocates is critical to ensure that Metro makes a financial commitment to first and last mile as part of its transit capital program. If the full board adopts the motion, Metro will be making an unambiguous policy statement that transit projects need to include access for people walking and biking in their project budgets.
Metro will be making big decisions at their June meeting. In addition to the first/last mile motion, the board will consider the entire expenditure plan. This is our final opportunity to make the case that walking and biking need more investment in order to make our communities safer and healthier places to live. Please join us at these meetings and let us know you’re coming by RSVPing on here.
Update on March 9, 2016: The Joint Committee will discuss this item on Monday March 14th at 2pm in City Hall. Please email us at jessica@investinginplace.org if you plan to attend or are interested in more information. Thank you!
Last week, members of the City of Los Angeles Joint Committee of Public Works and Gang Reduction and Budget and Finance Committee submitted a letter to the City Council with their policy proposals for the City of Los Angeles Sidewalk Program. Read the complete letter here.
The letter signed by Councilmembers: Paul Krekorian, Joe Buscaino, Nury Martinez and Mike Bonin opens with, “For forty years, the City of Los Angeles has been stuck with a dysfunctional policy when it comes to sidewalks.” This lack of a solid policy for the City’s over 11,500 miles of sidewalks, has created a situation of buckled sidewalks, utilities in the middle of the sidewalks blocking access, missing sidewalks, lack of curbcuts, crosswalks in need of redesign and upgrade, and intersections and paths of travel in need of critical safety and livability fixes and more – this growing list of infrastructure problems totals over $1.5 Billion dollars in need for the City of Los Angeles.
As a result of the lack of sidewalk repair, several years ago plantiffs Mark Willits, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, and Communities Actively Living Independent and Free (“CALIF”) filed a class action to ensure better access for persons with mobility disabilities to the city’s sidewalks, curb ramps, crosswalks, pedestrian crossings and other walkways. This lawsuit was settled in 2015 and outlines key next steps, as well as mandates the City of Los Angeles invest a minimum $31 Million annual in sidewalk repair.
Concurrent to the sidewalk class action, in June 2014 the Joint Committee of Public Works and Gang Reduction and Budget and Finance began holding hearings and community meetings across the city to engage hundreds of stakeholders in efforts to finally develop a comprehensive sidewalk program. The Joint Committee recommendations now will go before the full City Council for discussion. As outlined in their letter the recommendations are to ensure a City of Los Angeles Sidewalks policy include the following elements:
Incentivize Proactive Repairs by Property Owners
Inspection and Certification
Comprehensive Repair Program
Warranty for Future Damage
Prioritizing and Coordinating Repairs
Demand based Repair Work Coordinated by Council Offices
Division of Labor for the Repair Work
Preserving the Urban Forest While Maintaining Accessibility
Utilizing Non-Standard Sidewalks Designs and Materials
Leveraging the Sidewalk Program, Accelerating Constructions and Alternative Financing Options
What’s unclear to us after reading the letter is: will this program finally create a comprehensive inventory of the City’s 11,500 miles of sidewalks in order to ensure the prioritization, coordination, and acceleration is feasible and developed in a systematic and data driven framework for the entire city?
For several months, Investing in Place has been convening a work group on this pending policy. Supporting the creation of an inventory has become the clear ask from advocates across the city in order to ensure steps are taken to create a comprehensive program. With the City of Los Angeles budgeted to spend $31 Million by July this year, creating a citywide inventory would be a helpful and pragmatic next step. For more background, see our comment letter and ideas the Investing in Place workgroup, and AARP submitted to the Joint Policy Committee for fixing the most critical element of the transportation network – the city sidewalk.
The City of Los Angeles is considering a policy to address the improvement needs extending over 11,000 miles of sidewalks and paths of travel on Monday November 16th. Investing in Place and partner organizations are concerned that many mobility, safety, sustainability and social equity goals and policies are not being strategically addressed in the recommendations from the City Administrative Offices (5/26/15: New policy for repair and management of sidewalks adjacent to private property).
Therefore, Investing in Place and partners are submitting a comment letter this week and ask others to sign on in support of our recommendations to address these goals. This letter states that we welcome the opportunity to work with the the City to develop a strategic, data driven framework for this policy and work plan. We encourage the City to look beyond sidewalk repairs as simply a budget issue, but to view repairs through a planning lens that examines mobility and quality of life issues, and not only links but strengthens existing local, regional and state policies and goals. And click here to read AARP’s comments on the proposed policy. Thank you AARP!
As Los Angeles County considers a fourth transportation sales with potential to generate tens of billions of new transportation dollars, we look to best practices to guide the framework and metrics used to prioritize investments. And the City of Los Angeles Safe Routes to School Strategic Plan provides just that. It is an example of transportation policy that is based on data and need, taking precedence over political boundaries and supports a citywide vision.
In 2012 the City’s department of transportation (LADOT) launched the Safe Routes to School Strategic Plan to make the most of the city’s resources to address mobility needs for students and families and the 500 public school within the city limits. This strategic plan developed a prioritization and methodology for targeting the top 50 highest Los Angeles Unified District Schools (LAUSD) schools using the criteria:
Collision rates
Number of enrolled students living within walking distance and bicycling distance of the school (thanks to a critically valuable partnership the City of Los Angeles has developed with LAUSD)
Percentage of students eligible for free and reduced lunches
Determination if the school has previously received a Safe Routes to School State or Federal grant before
As a result of this data based strategic plan that addresses public health and social equity goals, in 2014 LADOT was successful in being awarded over $20 million from the State Active Transportation Program (ATP) to increase safety through street improvements around nine of the highest need schools, develop complementary safety and education campaigns and create school travel plans for the remaining top 50 high need schools. And the Safe Routes to School strategic plan is also a critical part of the City of Los Angeles Vision Zero efforts, enabling the city to layer on data, need, and prioritization methodology to address social equity and public health in not only in its policies but in its funding decisions.
This local example is a powerful story on how regional transportation funds could be allocated on need and desired safety and mobility outcomes using public health and social equity metrics, data, prioritization methodology and partnerships.
Metro is writing a new comprehensive Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). Under the existing LRTP from 2009, Metro hopes to increase the farebox recovery rate of its bus and rail systems. Farebox recovery is the percentage of transit operating expenses that are covered by revenues from transit fares. The current rate is 29%. Metro hopes to increase the rate to 33%. Under current circumstances, this probably means raising the price of bus and train tickets. Here I’d like to explain why I think a different goal is more appropriate for the new LRTP: maximizing ridership.
What would this kind of breakdown look like for other transportation modes?
Charge More?
But first, you might ask: “What’s wrong with charging a bit more?” It’s an understandable question. In order to keep things going, Metro has to match expenditure with revenue. Any organization that keeps running deficits eventually becomes insolvent. So farebox recovery would ideally be 100% and Metro would be in the black, right? Under this scenario, the subsidies keeping the buses and trains rolling are the problem. Society may begrudgingly pay out of a sense of moral obligation to the poor, but users should pay more so that we can keep this handout as small as possible.
Last week Investing in Place met with staff from the City of LA’s Chief Administrative Office (CAO) for a update on the status of the sidewalk repair program. We learned that in early October the City’s Committees of Budget/Finance and Public Works/Gang Reduction will come together to consider the CAO’s sidewalk repair recommendations for policy action, we believe the policy recommendations need to reflect a different approach.
We see this as a critical time for stakeholders to get involved and support a sidewalk infrastructure policy program that:
Views sidewalks as a core part of the City’s transportation network, not piecemealed based on property ownership characteristics (ie City facility, business/commercial, residential).
Creates a citywide sidewalk strategic plan/inventory strategy.
Creates a prioritization plan based on social equity and public health metrics and uses the city’s high injury network (HIN), and other factors to inform the prioritization plan.
Leverages the potential 2016 Los Angeles County transportation sales tax revenue to accelerate the repair program to fix the city’s sidewalks in 10 years, not the proposed 30 years.
Involves and is informed by stormwater capture and tree preservation/replanting strategies.
Supports meaningful community participation during this effort.
Background: On April 1, 2015 the City of Los Angeles announced the settlement on American with Disabilities Act (ADA) lawsuit to fix LA’s sidewalks. After several years of litigation the City of Los Angeles agreed to fix the city’s broken sidewalks and ensure accessibility and safety for all. This legal agreement represents the largest disability payout in the country. The settlement calls for a citywide sidewalk repair plan and spending over $1 billion in funds to fix and improve sidewalks throughout the city within the next 30 years (see LA Times and Legal Aid Society coverage and analysis). This then triggered the City Administrative Office (CAO) to issue a report to Mayor Eric Garcetti and City Council, called “New Policy for Repair and Management of Sidewalks Adjacent to Private Property,” in May 2015. This report included recommendations for a comprehensive sidewalk repair strategy, including the development of policies to address sidewalk repairs by other governmental agencies, commercial property and residential properties. This report is still a recommended action by the CAO’s office. It is critical to realize, no decisions have been made by the council on how to proceed further. Members of City Council are currently in the process of assessing the recommendations. They are also holding community meetings, assessing the needs of their districts and requesting input from area residents on sidewalk repair needs. So now is the time for stakeholders to weigh in. Per staff in the CAO’s office, the City Council is expected to decide on sidewalk funding and repair policy this fall, with the goal of approving the policy and staffing levels by December 2015.
It is a critical time to weigh for stakeholders to weigh in on this policy decision. The city is potentially approving a $1.4Billion dollar infrastructure plan without comprehensive strategic plan or funding strategy. The sidewalks in the City of Los Angeles represent one of the most critical public spaces, but are not yet afforded the same luxuries many other transportation infrastructure projects enjoy such as strategic planning, data and inventory collection, safety prioritization, comprehensive funding or being viewed as a core part of the transportation network.
Next steps: We are thinking about hosting a conference call in the first week in October to brief partners on this policy effort and invite LA City staff to share the latest updates, especially before the Joint Committees meeting. Please email jessica@investinginplace.org if you’d like to be involved.
As newly appointed Metro CEO Phil Washington settles into his role, Investing in Place and Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition (LACBC) were pleased to develop a policy brief summarizing research, stakeholder input and collaborative efforts to improve walking and bicycling conditions in Los Angeles County for his review.
A key element in the policy brief was the research conducted by the Safe Routes to School National Partnership and LACBC on Best Practices for Funding Active Transportation with County Transportation Sales Taxes. While Los Angeles County is one of the strongest self-help counties in the nation for transportation investments, with close to 70 percent of the county’s transportation funding coming from existing local sales taxes (Propositions A and C and Measure R), none of these existing three county transportation sales taxes dedicates a significant amount of funding towards improving safety and convenience for people walking, bicycling or accessing transit.
This research found, that since 2000, several California counties have set aside as much as 11 percent of sales tax revenues for walking, bicycling and safe routes to school projects and programs, providing a potential model for Los Angeles County as Metro again considers an additional sales tax measure. In addition, many counties subject all funding from the taxes to complete streets policies that require incorporation of walking and bicycling improvements into all projects, while Alameda County requires a minimum percentage of each municipality’s local return be dedicated to active transportation.
Since 2012, the National Partnership, LACBC and Investing in Place have conducted about a dozen convenings with elected officials, policy makers, public agencies and community based organizations across the Los Angeles region. Through these convenings we have found overwhelming support across the county and among the public, nonprofit and private sectors for increasing investments in active transportation. Stakeholders from public health, social and economic justice, environmental and business organizations have rallied around active transportation as a way to address the triple bottom line of environment, economy and equity. Moreover, participants in our convenings have expressed interest in expanding this agenda to address health and social equity outcomes from transportation generally. Our partners see active transportation not as an isolated goal, but as the entry point to expanding our focus on neighborhoods and communities. Read our June 2015 policy brief here.
After several years of litigation the City of Los Angeles agreed to fix the city’s broken sidewalks and ensure accessibility and safety for all. This legal agreement represents the largest disability payout in the country. The settlement calls for a citywide sidewalk repair plan and spending over $1 billion in funds to fix and improve sidewalks throughout the city (see LA Times and Legal Aid Society coverage and analysis).
Next steps include developing a work plan and prioritization of efforts. Right now the City has over $27 million in approved budgeted funds to get started on this work this year. The source of transportation funds for this work beyond the initial $27 million has not yet been identified. The city is also creating a position to monitor the work and will draft reports on its progress twice yearly.
City of Los Angeles announces settlement on ADA lawsuit to fix LA’s sidewalks on 4/1/15
In order to leverage the funds for this scale of infrastructure rehab (over 10,000 miles of sidewalks within the city), an inventory and prioritization process is needed to develop a citywide strategic plan. The data collected and metrics used will enable articulation of detailed costs and an implementation program. Social equity and public health data will need to be critical parts of the performance metrics process to ensure the best outcomes for the highest needs communities in the City. Having a solid strategic plan will enable the city to compete for federal, state and regional transportation funds to complete the infrastructure repair.
Project delivery, transparency and coordination with other Citywide transportation projects will be critical for the sidewalk repair program. 30 years seems like a long time to wait to fix the city’s broken sidewalks, and this process should be accelerated to be completed within 10-15 years. Metro’s 30/10 program offers an example of how this could be done.
However, the City of Los Angeles struggles with delivering transportation projects in timely manner. During the October 2014 Street Transportation Project Oversight Committee and Transportation Committee meetings (audio of meeting, discussion at 58 minute mark), staff discussed the current backlog of safe routes to school, walking, and bicycling projects. This backlog of projects, totaling close to 1/4 of a billion dollars, is waiting for delivery by the Department of Transportation (DOT) and Bureau of Street Services (BSS). These are combination of federal, state, and Metro grant funds that the city has been awarded but has not yet implemented.
It is exciting to see the City of Los Angeles ready to fix its broken sidewalks and focus on improving multi-modal travel as seen in the draft mobility plan and DOT strategic plan, but it is critical that the funding and efficient project delivery becomes aligned with these policies goals.
Richard France assists clients with strategic planning, visioning, and community and economic development. He is a strategic planner at Estolano Advisors, where he has been involved in a variety of active transportation, transit-oriented development, climate change resiliency, and equitable economic development projects. His work in active transportation includes coordinating a study to improve bike and pedestrian access to transit oriented districts for the County of Los Angeles, and working with the Southern California Association of Governments to host tactical urbanism events throughout the region. Richard also serves as a technical assistance provider for a number of California Climate Investment programs, including the Affordable Housing Sustainable Communities, Transformative Climate Communities, and Low Carbon Transit Operations programs. He has also taught at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs. Richard received a Bachelor of Environmental Design from the University of Colorado at Boulder, and his M.A. in Urban Planning from UCLA.
Accelerator for America, Milken Institute
Matt Horton
Matt Horton is the director of state policy and initiatives for Accelerator for America. He collaborates with government officials, impact investors, and community leaders to shape infrastructure, job creation, and equitable community development efforts. With over fifteen years of experience, Matt has directed research-driven programs and initiatives focusing on housing production, infrastructure finance, access to capital, job creation, and economic development strategies. Previously, he served as the director of the California Center at the Milken Institute, where he produced research and events to support innovative economic policy solutions. Matt also has experience at the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), where he coordinated regional policy development and planning efforts. He holds an MA in political science from California State University, Fullerton, and a BA in history from Azusa Pacific University. Additionally, Matt serves as a Senior Advisor for the Milken Institute and is involved in various advisory boards, including Lift to Rise and WorkingNation.
UCLA Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies
Madeline Brozen
Madeline is the Deputy Director of the UCLA Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies at the Luskin School of Public Affairs. She oversees and supports students, staff, and faculty who work on planning and policy issues about how people live, move, and work in the Southern California region. When not supporting the work of the Lewis Center community, Madeline is doing research on the transportation patterns and travel needs of vulnerable populations in LA. Her recent work includes studies of low-income older adults in Westlake, public transit safety among university students, and uncovering the transportation needs of women, and girls in partnership with Los Angeles public agencies. Outside of UCLA, Madeline serves as the vice-chair of the Metro Westside Service Council and enjoys spending time seeing Los Angeles on the bus, on foot, and by bike.
Office of Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass
Luis Gutierrez
Luis Gutierrez, works in the Office of Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, as the Director of Energy & Water in the Office of Energy and Sustainability (MOES), Luis oversees issues related to LA’s transition to clean energy, water infrastructure, and serves as the primary liaison between the Mayor’s Office and the Department of Water and Power. Prior to joining MOES, Luis managed regulatory policy proceedings for Southern California Edison (SCE), focusing on issues related to equity and justice. Before joining SCE, Luis served as the Director of Policy and Research for Inclusive Action for the City, a community development organization dedicated to economic justice in Los Angeles. Luis holds a BA in Sociology and Spanish Literature from Wesleyan University, and a Master’s Degree in Public Administration from Cal State LA.
kim@investinginplace.org
Communications Strategist
Kim Perez
Kim is a writer, researcher and communications strategist, focused on sustainability, urban resilience and safe streets. Her specialty is taking something complex and making it clear and compelling. Harvard-trained in sustainability, she won a prize for her original research related to urban resilience in heat waves—in which she proposed a method to help cities identify where pedestrians spend a dangerous amount of time in direct sun, so they can plan for more equitable access to shade across a city.
For over almost two decades, Jessica has led efforts in Los Angeles to promote inclusive decision-making and equitable resource allocation in public works and transportation funding. Jessica’s current work at Investing in Place is grounded in the belief that transparent and strategic prioritization of public funds can transform Los Angeles into a city where inclusive, accessible public spaces enrich both livability and well-being. As a collaborator and convener, Jessica plays a role in facilitating public policy conversations and providing nuanced insights into the interplay of politics, power, and process on decision-making and fiscal allocations.
The above definition is widely supported, however, determining the criteria to identify the areas, and the program and funding to begin to operationalize this definition is where we focused the morning’s discussion.
You must be logged in to post a comment.